Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: pdm59 Date: Dec 14, 2012 9:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

Open carry seems a better alternative than concealed carry.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 15, 2012 7:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

I guarantee you that if the shooter in Aurora had walked in and seen Sigs, H&Ks, Glocks and Smith & Wessons on the hips and shoulders of other moviegoers 58 people wouldn't have been shot.

Maybe 3 or 4, but not 58.

I rarely open carry, but when I do I have an acute awareness that any potential bad guy has a clear picture of who his threat is.

And I am okay with that.........

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

"I guarantee you that if the shooter in Aurora had walked in and seen Sigs, H&Ks, Glocks and Smith & Wessons on the hips and shoulders of other moviegoers 58 people wouldn't have been shot. Maybe 3 or 4, but not 58."

But Mando, those people just having a casual night at the movies, carrying Sigs, H&Ks (whatever, I don't even know these terms) on their hips ... you're suggesting we should make a trade off between maybe (a very big maybe) one of them is able to stop a terrible slaughter like occurred in the movie theater, and the fact that with all these extra guns just being carried around casually, at the movies or the mall, the odds go way up that one of those people uses it in an argument with a son or daughter or husband or wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or co-worker or next door neighbor or just with some random idiot in a traffic altercation. Either in an argument, or in a case of mistaken identity in a crisis. This is definitely what the statistics show - you freak out and shoot, and it turns out it was just your spouse who broke in 'cus he couldn't find his key and thought you were asleep, etc. This type of scenario is FAR more likely in real life than the statistical occurrence of these mass shootings in public places.

Is that an acceptable trade off?

And that's even assuming that you are correct that such a slaughter could have been prevented by some ordinary Joe in the movie theater who happened to be armed. Maybe. I could see that could work out that way. But I think it's equally likely there'd have still been a horrific melee. Despite best intentions, you'd just have people shooting in the dark, with no idea who was a good guy and who was a bad guy. Maybe some of them would be competent with guns, but a lot of them would be wannabes. I think just as many people would have died in a confusion of cross-fire.

Your proposition that most of us should turn into mini-Mando's, spending hours a week at the shooting range, is just not realistic. Obviously, that is not going to happen. Why not? Well, for me, I just don't want to. I have a life, and I have zero interest in EVER learning to shoot a gun, never mind have shooting become an actual hobby I spend time on. Never. You know what I'm saying? When I'm not working or caring for my family, I knit and crochet, I listen to the Grateful Dead, I go jogging. I am not going to go learn to shoot.

Most of us just should. Not. Be. Carrying. Guns. Around. It's barbaric. Period. And yet, we should be able to send our kids to school, or just go to the movies without this kind of fear. Our fellow citizens, neighbors, co-workers, moviegoers (never mind teachers or school children!!) shouldn't be armed. I would just STOP going to the movies if I believed it was likely that a number of people in the cinema had guns. I would not send my children to school if teachers or students were allowed to bring guns. That's the end of MY FAMILY'S lifestyle. Maybe YOURS works with carrying a gun around in public, but MINE does not and we are ordinary law-abiding citizens. We have RIGHTS not to have to put up with fear of this kind of shit.

Also, your whole plan relies on a distinction between good guys and bad guys that isn't actually real. There's no such clear cut distinction. There are definitely times I would not be a trustworthy person if I had a gun on me. - I'm under stress, man :) but seriously, you seem to believe it's clear who is sane and stable and who is not, and it's not at all. It changes minute by minute. I trust YOU would know what to do, from everything you've said you are clearly reliable (putting it mildly) but you're hardly the average person wandering around with a gun, legally acquired or otherwise. It just can't work.




Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mandojammer Date: Dec 17, 2012 10:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

Only responding because it's you ring -

"Most of us just should. Not. Be. Carrying. Guns. Around. It's barbaric. Period. And yet, we should be able to send our kids to school, or just go to the movies without this kind of fear. Our fellow citizens, neighbors, co-workers, moviegoers (never mind teachers or school children!!) shouldn't be armed. I would just STOP going to the movies if I believed it was likely that a number of people in the cinema had guns. I would not send my children to school if teachers or students were allowed to bring guns. That's the end of MY FAMILY'S lifestyle. Maybe YOURS works with carrying a gun around in public, but MINE does not and we are ordinary law-abiding citizens. We have RIGHTS not to have to put up with fear of this kind of shit."

100% agreement. Unfortunately, the reality is that asocial sociopaths don't give a shit about what you think or what your rights are. You don't have a choice. I am in full agreement with you that we shouldn't have to live this way - but there are predators in society that you at least need to be aware of. They don't care what you think. They are going to capitalize on your idealistic viewpoint that "this isn't happening to me" and they are going to make it happen to you. I am unwilling to cede any advantage to anyone. I don't walk around paranoid and thinking every person is a potential bad guy, but I do know that if someone does single me out and I am forced to act for my own safety or the safety of those around me I am bringing the whole tool kit.

"Also, your whole plan relies on a distinction between good guys and bad guys that isn't actually real. There's no such clear cut distinction."

There is actually a very clear distinction. I'll simplify and no doubt insult someone/anyone/everyone with sociology/psychology/psychiatry training and/or education. Understand I am coming at this strictly from a personal defense standpoint.

There are three types of confrontational interactions people have.

1. Social - good natured ribbing back and forth. Arguing at a bar during a football game. Rarely excalates to physical violence. You don't really have to do anything to avoid this. Inaction solves the problem by doing nothing.

2. Anti-social - now the bar scene ratchets up a notch. Dude has a little too much to drink and is pissed off because Navy beat Army for the 11th straight time. As you are headed to the bathroom, you bump his elbow and he spills his beer. He starts screaming and dropping f bombs and cussing up a storm and posturing as if he's going to hit you, but doesn't. Maybe a shove or two, but again, this situation is in most cases defused with words or by just walking away. It rarely escalates to physical violence where someone gets hurt bad.

3. Asocial - this is where there is a clear cut distinction. This is the guy that follows you to your car in the mall parking lot and takes a swing at your heat with a bat. This is the guy that grabs you by the hair and tries to throw you into a van. Inaction will get you killed. You can't reason your way out of this encounter. You must do something. If you have to ask yourself if someone is a bad guy or not, he isn't. If you have to act to protect yourself or the lives of your family or friends, you have a bad guy. Asocial encounters require action.

I'd rather be ready for the unlikely chance that something is going to happen to me rather than be unprepared or unwilling to address a situation that I have no choice in. Chances are I will never again have to do what I did back in 1990. But if I had not been prepared to do what I did, there is a good chance I wouldn't be here today.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Dec 15, 2012 3:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

I am not a gun person, but I have no problem with those who respect both their guns and the laws that seek to control them. "Gun Control",like a padlock, is another of the measures that will mostly keep the honest honest. Rather than passing more stringent gun control laws, enact stricter penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

On the subject of "open carry", I don't think someone planning mayhem is going to openly display his weapon. And as Mando intimated, open carry may cause someone with evil on their mind to have second thoughts.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 16, 2012 5:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: US Gun Law Reform - a conversation -

Sure, he'd have shot 3 or 4 and the rest would have been hit by vigilante crossfire.

You all are ignoring a fundamental fact. The US has some of the weakest gun laws in the world and by far the most of these random, senseless shootings (as opposed to those that are politically motivated). Do you really not see a connection there?